Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
My feelings exactly. If their claim can't even compete for evidence with a rock, or any other basic part of the experiential world, and has to be twisted around in pretzels to give the superficial appearance of being part of that world, they've given up the game before they've even started. And admitted as much.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
November 10, 2015 at 11:50 am (This post was last modified: November 10, 2015 at 11:50 am by robvalue.)
Yeah, I'm waiting to hear what the point of trying to lower the bar is. With no context or examples, I'm left to guess.
What is to be gained by just believing a load of unsupported nonsense? Especially since you then also have to believe other nonsense to be consistent and quickly load up with contradictory "beliefs".
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(November 10, 2015 at 11:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, I'm waiting to hear what the point of trying to lower the bar is. With no context or examples, I'm left to guess.
What is to be gained by just believing a load of unsupported nonsense? Especially since you then also have to believe other nonsense to be consistent and quickly load up with contradictory "beliefs".
(November 10, 2015 at 11:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, I'm waiting to hear what the point of trying to lower the bar is. With no context or examples, I'm left to guess.
What is to be gained by just believing a load of unsupported nonsense? Especially since you then also have to believe other nonsense to be consistent and quickly load up with contradictory "beliefs".
What is gained is community and the benefits of communal action such as killing the village next door and taking their stuff.
Religions work better on false beliefs than true. True beliefs can be proven and shared by everyone. They do not form isolated and subjectively exceptional groups. The more weird a false belief, the stronger ties that are formed between the individuals that can stomach it isolating them from their neighbors.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
November 10, 2015 at 1:36 pm (This post was last modified: November 10, 2015 at 1:37 pm by robvalue.)
I have definitely got the impression that the more contrived and utterly ridiculous the religious claim is, the better. Simple ones are too easily seen through as nonsense or are just plain boring.
It makes you seem really clever to be supposedly understanding a load of twisted nonsense.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
A hypothetical example is never an anecdote, because an anecdote always implies that the described content actually happened.
So even if someone used a hypothetical example as their whole argument (and I haven't seen anyone doing this, by the way) it still wouldn't be an anecdote.
You telling someone else down the pub that some atheists used an example as their whole argument would be an anecdote. You're then saying that particular event did happen, just as you describe it.
The main difference between an anecdote and an example is that whether or not the example actually happened as described, or will happen as described, is not important. It's the point it is trying to convey that is important. With an anecdote, all that matters is whether it is true or not. An anecdote can be used as an example: at this point, the truth of the anecdote as a whole is no longer important.
Anecdotes: The floor gave way and I fell through, breaking both my legs. My friend Jimmy had already walked on the floor, but it didn't break for him. (The only important factor here is whether these events actually happened as described.)
Examples: A floor will generally have a maximum weight it can support. There is a wooden floor, and two people walk onto it. Max, who weighs less than this maximum walks onto the floor, and it supports him just fine. Jimmy, who weighs more than this maximum, walks onto the floor and it gives way. (Whether or not these examples actually happened is not important, it's the point they are illustrating that is important.)
Anecdote as an example: I walked on a floor and it gave way. I found out later that the maximum weight the floor could support was 50kg, and I weigh 60kg. (It's now not important whether this personal story actually happened or not in order to make the point.)
The fact that you haven't given a single example to us to help illustrate your point is what makes this discussion so difficult. When someone is trying to make an argument and can't or won't produce any examples, I have to doubt if they really know what point they are making themselves; or wonder if they are dishonestly trying to slip a point in that they can't back up. I don't like to think this of people, which is why I always ask for examples.
I think we've done this topic to death by now, as I pointed out the titular phrase is not a scientific principle, it's an informal rule of thumb. If you personally will accept a series of anecdotes as sufficient evidence for a highly unusual claim, then I'm afraid that just makes you gullible. The thing is, I don't actually think you would do this, regarding most topics. Since you won't give any examples, it looks like a precursor to an agenda, to which you're willing to stretch the truth about how you'd really handle situations unrelated to the agenda.
But even if you would employ low evidence standards in everyday life, that's no reason for science to follow suit since you've not demonstrated it's actually a good idea.
I think you are quibbling of minutia, but that this not the point, and the discussion isn't about anecdotes or made up stuff so I'll digress. You are still assuming a low standard of evidence on my part I notice, and the discussion as intended wasn't about the standard or quality of evidence, but about objectivity and reason (I'm not asserting anything about the standard of evidence and even gave ways to test if your standards are too low or too high).
I didn't give many examples although there was one in the first posts, and I did answer questions later (I also gave examples from personal experience in engineering). I did give logic and reason, which for the most part, I don't think has been addressed. Not one person to my recollection has pointed out a problem with what I described. I also think it is important to point out, that science isn't the only method for truth. I think that the principle I ascribed applies equally well to the philosophy of science, but it is a category error to compare every claim to science. I'm not talking about only science here, but discovering the truth about reality (of which science is one method).
You say it causes you difficulty to not have an example, however I don't think you understand that any example is going to be the same as those provided for EC-EE, however the reasons for the conclusion is different. It is illogical to say that the same reasons produce a different result based on your subjective knowledge or belief. It is more accurate, to say that either reasons are unstated or assumed, or that the evidence is insufficient reason for both claims. It's not reasonable for me to hmake the same assumptions as you. And if the reasons are insufficient, but something is unstated, then it would be the time to provide additional evidence. The nature of reality is that things are true or false, whether you believe or understand them or not. EC-EE is a philosophical claim and thus requires a philosophical answer. Your anecdotes or examples (whether fiction or not) do not show it to be reasonable. And I still do not understand what extraordinary evidence is or why sufficient evidence would become nonsufficient.
(November 10, 2015 at 9:39 am)FreeTony Wrote: I am deeply suspicious of anyone who wants to lower the standards of evidence required, so that their claim may be believed.
That is ok.... you suspicions are based mostly on presumptions. I'm suspicious of those who want to move the bar based on subjective knowledge, and disbelief.
(November 10, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: If you're not discussing the "standards of evidence", why is the phrase "extraordinary evidence" in your thread title?
If I could clarify what I meant. It's not about what the standard of reasonable evidence is, but how it is handled. I think it is unreasonable to be expected to hit an ever moving an illdefined target. I don't think that reason and logic are subjective, nor that they only apply to common occurances. I'm open to discussing where the bar is set, but I think it should be able to be applied to all arguments, not just some.
(November 10, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: If you're not discussing the "standards of evidence", why is the phrase "extraordinary evidence" in your thread title?
If I could clarify what I meant. It's not about what the standard of reasonable evidence is, but how it is handled. I think it is unreasonable to be expected to hit an ever moving an illdefined target. I don't think that reason and logic are subjective, nor that they only apply to common occurances. I'm open to discussing where the bar is set, but I think it should be able to be applied to all arguments, not just some.
That's pretty unrealistic where the real world is concerned, as shown above.
It'd be nice if the real world was that cut-and-dried, but it ain't.
